Thursday, December 27, 2018

The Jewish Religion - Part II

Part II

„The sources of our knowledge of the kabalistic doctrines are the books of Yetzirah and Zohar, the former drawn up in the second century, and the latter a little later; but they contain materials much older than themselves... In them, as in the teachings of Zoroaster, everything that exists emanates from a source of infinite Light.“ (Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma).

„Alexandria, newly built, was colonized by the Jews, who came in crowds to people the new town. The result was a mixture of men of different nations and religions, who gave rise to several philosophical and religious associations. Platonism was publicly taught by the Greeks in Alexandria, it was eagerly received by the Alexandrian Jews, who communicated it to the Jews of Judea and Palestine...In Egypt and Judea, before the commencement of Christianity the philosophy of Pythagoras and Plato had thrust deep roots among the Jews, which gave rise to the dogmas of the Essenes, Therapeuts, Sadducees, Carpocratians, Cabalistic-Gnostics, Basilideans, and Manichaeans; all these dogmatists adapted part of the doctrine of the Egyptian Magi and Priests of the above philosophy. They spread in time into Asia, Africa, and Europe. These different Jews preserved the mysteries of the Temple of Solomon with the allegory of the Grand Architect, who was the Jewish Messiah, an idea still preserved by the Jew today.“ (Reghellini de Schio, in 1833)

„Judaism: Judaism denotes the Jewish faith in its extravagant form of blind attachment to rites and traditions, and national exclusiveness. This must have been prevalent in the time of Christ, because of His constant exposure of their formalism and self-assumption, and because in John's Gospel 'the Jews' is used as synonymous with opposers of Christ and His teachings.“ (The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. II, (1901), p. 999).

„Judaism was not a religion but a law.“ (Moses Mendeissohn, The Jewish Plato)

„When only Jews are present we admit that Satan is our god.“ (Harold Rosenthal, former administrative aide to Sen. Jacob Javits, in a recorded interview)

„It is the Jew who lies when he swears allegiance to another faith; who becomes a danger to the world.“ (Rabbi Stephen Wise, New York Tribune, March 2, 1920).

„The principal characteristic of the Jewish religion consists in its being alien to the Hereafter, a religion, as it were, solely and essentially worldly. (Werner Sombart, Les Juifs et la vie économique, p. 291).

„Man can only experience good or evil in this world; if God wishes to punish or reward he can only do so during the life of man. it is therefore here below that the just must prosper and the impious suffer.“ (Kadmi Kohen: Nomades, F. Alcan, Paris, 1929 p. 277; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 164)

„To his unsociability the Jew added exclusiveness. Without the Law, without Judaism to practice it, the world would not exist, God would make it return again into a state of nothing; and the world will not know happiness until it is subjected to the universal empire of that [Jewish] law, that is to say, to the Empire of the Jews. In consequence the Jewish people is the people chosen by God as the trustee of his wishes and desires; it is the only one with which the Divinity has made a pact, it is the elected of the Lord...This faith in their predestination, in their election, developed in the Jews an immense pride; They come to look upon non-Jews with contempt and often with hatred, when patriotic reasons were added to theological ones.“ (B. Lazare, L'Antisémitisme, pp. 8-9; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, 184-185)

„Judaism presents a unique phenomenon in the annals of the world, of an indissoluble alliance, of an intimate alloy, of a close combination of the religious and national principles...
There is not only an ethical difference between Judaism and all other contemporary religions, but also a difference in kind and nature, a fundamental contradiction. We are not face to face with a national religion but with a religious nationality.“ (G. Batault, Le problème juif, pp. 65-66; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon de Poncins, 197)

„The idea of God, the image of God, such as it is reflected in the Bible, goes through three distinct phases. The first stage is the Higher Being, thirsty for blood, jealous, terrible, war-like. The intercourse between the Hebrew and his God is that of an inferior with s superior whom he fears and seeks to appease.
The second phase the conditions are becoming more equal. The pact concluded between God and Abraham develops its consequences, and the intercourse becomes, so to speak, according to stipulation. In the Talmudic Hagada, the Patriarchs engage in controversies and judicial arguments with the Lord. The Tora and the Bible enter into these debate and their intervention is preponderant. God pleading against Israel sometimes loses the lawsuit. The equality of the contracting parties is asserted. Finally the third phase the subjectively divine character of God is lost. God becomes a kind of fictitious Being. These very legends, one of which we have just quoted, for those who know the keen minds of the authors, give the impression, that they, like their readers, of their listeners, look upon God in the manner of a fictitious being and divinity, at heart, from the angle of a personification, of a symbol of the race [This religion has a code: The Talmud].“ (Kadmi Cohen, Nomades, p. 138; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon de Poncins, 197-198)

Thursday, December 20, 2018

The Significance of the Holocaust

Source: Free Speech magazine, September 2000, Volume 6 Number 9

by Dr. William L. Pierce

I was very pleased by the response to last week’s broadcast. I’ve always thought that most people are more interested in specific, anecdotal, and personal commentary than in more general and impersonal commentary, and that’s why I so often talk about very specific instances of Black crime, or liberal hypocrisy and nuttiness, or political corruption and treason, with names, dates, and places. But I am pleased to note that we do have many listeners who really care about the general principles underlying all of the specifics.

Today I’ll begin in a general way, but then we’ll move on to specific evidence to support the general theses. We’ll start with the general role of the Jews in European or White or Aryan or Gentile society, whichever term you prefer. My thesis has been that the Jews — as a whole — always are destructive: morally destructive, socially destructive, even intellectually destructive, but above all racially destructive. Any society, any nation, any people that gives the Jews a free hand to do what they want will be destroyed by them. This is so because it is in the nature of the Jews to destroy everything that is non-Jewish, and because the Jews have a unique faculty for destroying other peoples’ societies.

I’ll come back to this thesis in a moment with some evidence, but first we should note the problems it presents to us in our educational program. One problem is the inability of many of our people to generalize at all. They see everything only in individual and personal terms. You tell them that the Jews as a whole are destructive to our society, and they’ll say, “Oh, no, that isn’t true, because I know some Jews who aren’t doing anything destructive at all. They’re just minding their own business and trying to earn a living like everyone else.” They can’t quite grasp the concept of Jews as a whole; all they can see are Abe and Dave and Izzy and Sara as individuals.

A second problem is the other side of the coin: many of our people cannot think about the role of the Jews objectively because they have been convinced that the Jews as a whole aren’t like everyone else; they’re special and deserve special consideration; they’re not subject to criticism like other people. And I’m not referring primarily to the fundamentalist Christians, whose preachers have taught them that the Jews are “God’s chosen people” and can do no wrong. I’m thinking of the somewhat more sophisticated people, who have been taught by the mass media and the schools that the Jews are exempt from criticism because of their unique victim status. They suffered so much in the Holocaust that they deserve special consideration, and to accuse them of bad motives or wrongdoing is like kicking someone who is down.

Certainly, if we exclude the most primitive and superstitious Christians from consideration, it is the massive Holocaust propaganda that makes it difficult for most people to think objectively about the Jews. And let me tell you, it was planned that way. We’ll talk a lot more about that, but first let me finish my general thesis.

I said that the Jews as a whole are socially, morally, intellectually, and racially destructive, and that they have a unique faculty for being destructive. The reason for this is their unique mode of existence as a parasitic minority in a non-Jewish host population. Sometimes this dispersion — or diaspora — as a minority among Gentile hosts has been supplemented by a geographical concentration of Jews in Palestine or Babylon or another Jewish center, and sometimes not. In either case, parasitic is the applicable adjective.

There are other parasitic minorities, of course, but none are anything like the Jews. Gypsies, for example, exist as a parasitic minority in most White countries. Gypsies generally are considered a nuisance because of their proclivity for stealing, and when they become too much of an irritation they are chased away by the local people. But Gypsies never have an ambition to take over a White nation and suck it dry. They never try to subvert the host population. They never try to take over the schools or the newspapers and propagandize their hosts. They generally want to live among themselves, maintain their own identity, and exploit their hosts just enough to get by without causing a strong reaction.

The Jews, on the other hand, always try to take over. They don’t want the crumbs from Gentile society; they want everything. Gentile society, of course, resists, which is why the Jews have been expelled en masse from every nation in Europe, time after time, during the past thousand years. The Jewish method of overcoming the resistance is to corrupt the nation they are attempting to get their hands on. One aspect of the corruption is simple bribery. If you have enough money you may be able to buy privileges from the leaders of the nation. That worked when European nations were ruled by kings, and it works even better when a society is run by elected politicians. But if you really want to suck a nation dry, you need to go beyond bribery. You need to destroy a nation’s solidarity. A nation is, after all, like a large extended family, with everyone related by birth, even if very distantly.

You’re either in the family, a member of the nation, or you’re an alien, not in the family. That’s the essential distinction. So if you want to take over a nation, you need to make the members of the family, the citizens of the nation, forget their identity and their traditions. You need to corrupt the nation spiritually and morally as well as politically. You need to erase the distinction between insider and outsider; then you are no longer an outsider, and the resistance against you crumbles. Understand? That is and always has been the Jewish method: take over a nation by destroying it, by making a rootless, cosmopolitan, multicultural cesspool of it.

In other words, you need to gain control of the flow of information and ideas in the nation. You need to gain control of the mass media of news and entertainment. Then you can corrupt the nation’s soul. You can determine which opinions will be fashionable, and which will not. You can reshape the defining myths of the nation to suit your own ends. You can poison the minds of the children and turn them against their own people. You can steal the people’s knowledge of their own past from them and thereby be in a better position to steal their future too. You can plunder the nation at will. And that is exactly what the Jews have done to every Gentile society, every White nation, since the Second World War.

Of course, corrupting a nation’s soul may turn out to be a fairly large and complex undertaking, and lots of tricks may be required to get the job done. When it comes to tricks, however, the Jews are in their own element. The slickest and most effective trick the Jews have pulled since the war is their famous Holocaust trick. I’ve spoken with you before about the Holocaust. I’ve pointed out that the way to see through the trick is to examine it piece by piece, claim by claim, detail by detail. That’s the way to separate the lies from the half-truths that they have skillfully woven together. That’s why anyone who refuses to swallow the thing whole, anyone who refuses to bow and genuflect in the presence of the Holocaust, anyone who irreverently says, “Well, let’s examine this thing and see what it’s made of,” is denounced hysterically as a “Holocaust denier.”

Today we’ll look at what a Jew has to say about the Holocaust trick. The Jew is Norman Finkelstein. He is a professor at the City University of New York, and he’s a leftist. Like some other leftist Jews, he’s at odds with what he sees as a fascist government in Israel. More than that, I believe, is his concern that the greedier and more ambitious Jews will overreach themselves and bring disaster down on the heads of all the Jews. He’s especially concerned that the Holocaust myth will come unraveled and result in an enormous Gentile backlash against the Jews. He would like to defuse the thing before it blows up. And so Finkelstein has just had a book published for that purpose. It is titled The Holocaust Industry, and his fellow Jews are not happy about it. In fact, they are screaming for his blood. It is a dynamite book. It was published last month, and you can get a copy from my company, National Vanguard Books, or from, even though you probably won’t find it in your friendly neighborhood bookstore.

Finkelstein spends the first few pages of his book documenting the fact that the Holocaust is a Jewish myth constructed more than 20 years after the end of the Second World War. The term did not come into general use until after 1967. Everyone understood, of course, that Jews had died during the war. No one questioned the fact that there were concentration camps where many Jews, Gypsies, communists, homosexuals, and other undesirables were segregated from German society. No one questioned the fact that toward the end of the war, when conditions in Poland and Germany became chaotic, conditions became even worse in the concentration camps, and many concentration camp prisoners, weakened by malnutrition, died from typhus and other diseases. No one questioned the fact that on the eastern front there were mass shootings of Jewish hostages or that Jewish political commissars were separated from Soviet POWs and shot. Many civilians on both the German side and the Jewish side died during the war.

But it wasn’t until more than 20 years after the war that Jewish leaders calculated that there was much to be gained by portraying Jews as the principal victims of the war, and so the Holocaust myth was constructed for this purpose. Mixing some facts — usually exaggerated or distorted facts — with lots of invention, the skilled mythmakers of Hollywood and New York brought forth the Holocaust, in which innocent Jews became the principal victims of the war, pushed into “gas ovens” by the millions by sadistic Nazis.

Finkelstein notes that the two defining dogmas of the Holocaust were, first, the claim that it was unique, the claim that no other persecution in all of history was even close to the Holocaust in magnitude or severity, the claim that the Holocaust gives to Jews the status of the premier victims of the world. Nobody else has suffered as much as the Jews have — and so nobody else is entitled to as much sympathy and compensation as the Jews. To suggest otherwise is tantamount to sacrilege.

The second defining dogma of the Holocaust was that it was a completely irrational act on the part of the Germans and was in no way based on anything the Jews themselves had done. The Jews, in other words were wholly blameless victims. To suggest that perhaps it was some behavior on the part of the Jews which provoked the Germans was to “blame the victim,” a very Politically Incorrect sin. It was a transgression against this second dogma — the dogma of irrationality — which caused one of Germany’s most distinguished historians, Ernst Nolte, to be cast into the outer darkness by the Jews and their Gentile allies. Nolte has pointed out in his writing that one of the reasons Hitler was determined to break the grip of the Jews on German society was their support for communism, and this also was one of a number of reasons the German people shared Hitler’s dislike of the Jews. The overwhelming role of the Jews in Soviet communism — and also in the communist movement in Germany before Hitler became chancellor in 1933 — was well known in Germany and elsewhere. And the atrocities committed by the Jews against the Gentile populations of those countries under communist rule — the artificial famine in Ukraine in which millions died and the mass shootings of Ukrainian peasants, for example — were well known also. So when Nolte received an award last month for his work as a historian, the Jews went into their Chicken Little act, a lot like the act they staged when Austrian Jörg Haider’s party entered the Austrian government a few months ago. Nolte was being rewarded for “blaming the victims” the Jews and their apologists screeched.

Finkelstein quotes some of the leading Holocaust propagandists in this regard. They see any form of anti-Semitism as a “Gentile mental pathology” with no rational basis. According to Holocaust high priest Elie Wiesel the anti-Semite is driven by:

. . .irrational arguments and simply resents the fact that the Jew exists.

Wiesel writes:

For two thousand years . . . we were always threatened. . . . For what? For no reason.

Daniel Goldhagen, the author of Hitler’s Willing Executioners, one of the most outrageously self-serving Holocaust propaganda books, writes that anti-Semitism is:

divorced from actual Jews . . . fundamentally not a response to any objective evaluation of Jewish action . . . independent of Jews’ nature and actions.

The Jewish novelist Cynthia Ozick explains it by saying:

The world wants to wipe out the Jews . . . the world has always wanted to wipe out the Jews.

Finkelstein’s book is especially valuable because it is so well documented. He cites dozens of other books and gives specific references to a number of especially revealing statements by other Jews. He also spares no scorn in talking about charlatans such as Wiesel and Goldhagen. He shows up Wiesel as a pious fraud whose standard speaker’s fee for lying about what happened during the Second World War is $25,000. Wiesel’s popularity is based on his ability to look solemn and spout utter nonsense without cracking a smile. He doesn’t talk about reality but about the sacred, ineffable mystery which is the Holocaust, a mystery beyond all understanding or explanation, which must never be examined or questioned. And his Gentile audiences just eat it up. I must admit that I thought a Jew couldn’t be embarrassed by this sort of fraud, but apparently Finkelstein really is embarrassed by Wiesel.

Finkelstein’s explanation as to why the Holocaust was invented is essentially the same as mine: the Holocaust gives the Jews immunity from criticism for whatever they do to non-Jews, no matter how atrocious, and it gives them a rationale for demanding a handout from the rest of the world. Finkelstein does a very creditable job of establishing this explanation by detailing the way in which the Jews have squeezed the Swiss and others for billions of dollars in Holocaust reparations. He writes:

In recent years the Holocaust industry has become an outright extortion racket.

Certainly, Finkelstein’s book should be read by anyone interested in what the Jews are doing. It is filled with very valuable information. It does have one extremely serious shortcoming, however. It blames the Holocaust fraud on a few greedy and unscrupulous Jews. Finkelstein writes about the activities of some of these Jews: Edgar Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress; Rabbi Israel Singer, the secretary-general of the World Jewish Congress; Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center; Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, and so on. And the greed and pushiness of these Jews is indeed breathtaking. Finkelstein reveals, for example, that Simon Wiesenthal, the famous Nazi-hunter, rents out his name to the Simon Wiesenthat Center in Los Angeles for $90,000 a year. Actually, that’s a good deal for Rabbi Hier and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Hier rakes in millions of dollars every year from guilt-stricken Gentiles by reminding them that they didn’t save enough Jews from Hitler during the Second World War.

But the fact is that if there were only a few greedy conspirators involved, the Holocaust industry never would have made a profit. The average couch potato never would have heard of it. The average soccer mom wouldn’t feel a twinge of guilt whenever Elie Wiesel invokes the sacred Holocaust mystery. So-called “Holocaust studies” would not be a part of the curriculum for high school students in 17 states. Israel wouldn’t be able to build a huge arsenal of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons without a peep of protest from anyone and then demand successfully that Iraq be bombed back into the Stone Age for trying to do the same thing.

The fact is that the Holocaust industry was built first and foremost by the mass media, and literally hundreds of thousands of Jews labor in that particular vineyard. A few ambitious Zionists and greedy Jewish hucksters may have come up with the original idea, but Steven Spielberg has done infinitely more to build the Holocaust myth than all of the greedy Zionist officials together. Furthermore, the Holocaust has been endorsed and supported by nearly the entire Jewish community. Nearly every Jew wants his share of Holocaust profits. Those like Finkelstein who have done anything at all to expose the fraud or even to disassociate themselves from it are a very tiny minority. Finkelstein certainly understands that, but he doesn’t admit in his book that he understands it. He doesn’t want to indict the Jewish community as a whole for the fraud, but in fact, it is the Jewish community as a whole that is guilty.

I said earlier that the Jews as a whole are destructive, and I used the example of the Holocaust to support this statement. The Holocaust is supported by and benefits Jews as a whole, not just a few of them, and the Holocaust is destructive to us, to our nation, in a thousand ways. The Holocaust shields Jewish organized crime in America, for example. Janet Reno’s Justice Department is afraid to tackle the big Jewish gangsters the way it tackled the Italian Mafia. The White sex-slave trade is able to flourish in Israel, and no politician in the United States will do anything to oppose it because it is a Jewish business. No politician in our government will threaten to cut off aid to Israel. Hillary Clinton can participate in an international conference on protecting women and deliberately and knowingly sabotage any measures that might put a crimp in the Jewish trade in sex slaves, and no one has the courage to criticize her for it. There’s really a lot more than crime and money and political corruption involved in this Holocaust racket. We let it control us, we let it rob us of our courage, and it destroys our souls.

Well, I’ve spoken in earlier broadcasts about many of the issues involved in the Holocaust racket. I’ll speak about other Holocaust issues in future broadcasts. It’s a big subject, with many facets. What you can do now is read Professor Finkelstein’s book, The Holocaust Industry. And then think about what you’ve read in the book while you watch the Bush campaign dance all around Al Gore’s vice-presidential choice Joseph Lieberman, afraid to lay a glove on him. You’ll understand why they’re afraid to say anything critical of Lieberman.

* * *

Monday, December 17, 2018

The Adolf Eichmann Trial

By John Wear
Published: 2018-12-12

The Adolf Eichmann trial created hugely increased public awareness of the so-called Holocaust in Israel and worldwide.[1] Deborah Lipstadt writes: “This trial, whose main objective was bringing a Nazi who helped organize and carry out genocide to justice, transformed Jewish life and society as much as it passed judgment on a murderer.”[2]

Law professor Lawrence Douglas writes: “The Eichmann trial…remains the Great Holocaust Trial—the legal proceeding in which the tasks of doing justice to unprecedented crimes, clarifying a tortured history, and defining the terms of collective memory conjoined and collided in the most provocative fashion. Indeed, the Eichmann trial served to create the Holocaust…”[3]

This article will show that the Eichmann trial was instead an unjust proceeding that augmented an already-false history of the so-called Holocaust.

Historical Background

Adolf Eichmann was abducted by Israeli agents in Argentina in May 1960. Given a choice between instant death or a trial, Eichmann chose to be the defendant in a criminal trial in Jerusalem that began on April 11, 1961.[4]

The defense strategy in Eichmann’s trial is summarized on the Yad Vashem website:

The defense team [was] comprised of Dr. Robert Servatius and his assistant, Dieter Wechtenbruch. The defense did not contest the facts included in the indictment, opting instead to play down the responsibility of the accused for the crimes of the Nazi regime against the Jews. The defense depicted the accused as “a small cog in the state apparatus,” lacking influence upon the planning and operation of the murder machine. This line of defense stressed Eichmann’s hierarchical inability to defy the instructions of his superiors, and the fact that it was the heads of the Nazi regime, rather than Eichmann, who adopted the decisive criminal decisions.[5]

As in the Nuremberg trials, almost all of the available documents were controlled by the prosecutors. With only two men on his defense team, Eichmann worked very hard throughout his trial and became the chief assistant to his defense counsel.[6]

The Israeli Mossad also spied on Dr. Servatius, and all of his consultations with Eichmann were closely monitored. This made it virtually impossible for the defense to spring any surprises during the trial.[7]

Eichmann underwent months of interrogation before securing defense counsel. Eichmann seemed to think at first that he would be kept alive in Israeli captivity only so long as he talked to his interrogator, Avner Less. The result of Eichmann’s interrogations was 275 hours of tape and a transcript running to 3,564 pages.[8]   

Consequently, the prosecution team had a huge advantage in Eichmann’s trial. Former Israeli Supreme Court Judge Gabriel Bach states: “We were three prosecutors. We gathered millions of pages of documentation and read a great deal of background sources. I don’t think I slept more than three hours every night throughout the trial...The German government was very cooperative and sent us a great deal of material.”[9]

Servatius stated at the opening of Eichmann’s trial that a fair trial was not possible in Israel. Servatius contested the legal basis of the trial and asked that the case against Eichmann be dismissed. Israeli Attorney General and chief prosecutor Gideon Hausner spent two and a half days rebutting Servatius’s numerous challenges to Israel’s legal right to conduct the trial. The three Israeli judges predictably ruled against Servatius and ordered the trial to continue.[10]   

Eyewitness Testimony

The prosecution called 112 witnesses in Eichmann’s trial. Testimony from Jewish eyewitnesses constituted the central element of the prosecution’s case, with only one non-Jewish eyewitness called to testify.[11]

Gideon Hausner called numerous witnesses who had no connection with Adolf Eichmann. While much of this testimony was based on hearsay, the Jewish eyewitnesses transformed the trial from an important war-crimes trial to one that would have enduring significance.[12]

Dr. Servatius knew under the trial conditions in Israel he could not contest the official Holocaust story. Servatius, who was supposed to be defending Eichmann, was also fully aware that he could not garner sympathy for his client by aggressively challenging the Jewish eyewitnesses. Servatius thus decided to conduct almost no cross-examinations of the prosecution witnesses.[13]

Hannah Arendt confirmed that that the prosecution witnesses were seldom cross-examined. Arendt wrote:

…the defense hardly ever rose to challenge any testimony, no matter how irrelevant and immaterial it might be” and “…the witnesses for the prosecution were hardly ever cross-examined by either the defense or the judges...[14]

When Dr. Servatius did contest a witness’s testimony, his goal was to show that it had no relevance to Eichmann’s activities. For example, when parts of Hans Frank’s diary were read into evidence, Servatius did not object to the diary’s admission or the readings from it. On cross-examination of the witness through whom the diary was put into evidence, Servatius asked only one question: Was the name of Adolf Eichmann mentioned in any of these 29 volumes? Since the answer was no, Servatius was satisfied.[15]

Servatius also did not call any defense witnesses in Eichmann’s trial. Most of the potential defense witnesses had been members of the Nazi Party, SD or SS. This meant that if they set foot in Israel they could be arrested under the same law under which Eichmann was being tried, and any testimony they gave in court was likely to be self-incriminating.[16]

The prosecution did allow affidavits from pertinent defense witnesses despite the fact that the prosecution would be unable to cross-examine these witnesses in court.[17] Several defense depositions were taken in German courts with Dieter Wechtenbruch appearing as Eichmann’s defense counsel. However, these defense witnesses, who could be subject to prosecution in Germany for any incriminating statements made in their depositions, were of no help to Eichmann’s defense.[18]  

Nuremberg Testimony

The prosecution also used testimony and affidavits from the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg to convict Adolf Eichmann. For example, the prosecution entered into evidence Rudolf Höss’s affidavit from the IMT that implicated Eichmann in the workings of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Rudolf Höss’s memoirs, which stated that Eichmann had visited him in the summer of 1941 to discuss the use of poison gas, were also introduced into evidence.[19]

Rudolf Höss’s testimony and affidavit should not have been allowed into evidence in Eichmann’s trial because Höss underwent particularly brutal torture upon his arrest. Höss stated in his memoirs: “At my first interrogation, evidence was obtained by beating me. I do not know what is in the record, although I signed it.”[20]

Additional proof that the torture of Rudolf Höss was exceptionally brutal is contained in the book Legions of Death. This book states that Sgt. Bernard Clarke and other British officers tortured Rudolf Höss into making his confession.[21] Obviously, such testimony obtained through torture should never have been admissible as evidence in Eichmann’s trial.

The testimony of Dieter Wisliceny at the IMT was also used against Eichmann. Wisliceny claimed at the IMT that Eichmann showed him a written order signed by Heinrich Himmler for the physical extermination of the Jews.[22] The prosecution at the Eichmann trial used Wisliceny’s testimony even though no written order from Himmler or anyone else to exterminate European Jewry has ever been found.

Film Evidence Presented at Trial

An excerpted and sliced version of Nazi Concentration Camps, the U.S. Army Signal Corps documentary shown to dramatic effect at the IMT, was shown in the 70th session of the Eichmann trial. This documentary was shown without soundtrack, and provided visual proof of the crimes of the so-called Holocaust. Gideon Hausner described the emaciated prisoners of war as “figures of Musselmänner”—that is, the death-camp inmates destined for the gas chamber because of their broken physical and psychological state.”[23]

The prosecution at the Eichmann trial failed to mention that most of the inmates in these camps died of natural causes. When American and British forces took control of the German concentration camps, they were followed by military personnel charged with documenting evidence of German war crimes.

 One of these was Dr. Charles P. Larson, an American forensic pathologist, who performed autopsies at Dachau and some of its sub-camps. Dr. Larson performed about 25 autopsies a day for 10 days at Dachau and superficially examined another 300 to 1,000 bodies. He autopsied only those bodies that appeared to be ambiguous. Dr. Larson stated in regard to these autopsies:

Many of them died from typhus. Dachau’s crematoriums couldn’t keep up with the burning of the bodies. They did not have enough oil to keep the incinerators going. I found that a number of the victims had also died from tuberculosis. All of them were malnourished. The medical facilities were most inadequate. There was no sanitation…

A rumor going around Dachau after we got there was that many of the prisoners were poisoned. I did a lot of toxicological analysis to determine the facts and removed organs from a cross-section of about 30 to 40 bodies and sent them into Paris to the Army’s First Medical laboratory for analysis, since I lacked the proper facilities in the field. The reports came back negative. I could not find where any of these people had been poisoned. The majority died of natural diseases of one kind or another.…[24]

Dr. Larson did report that a number of inmates had been shot at some of the German camps, and that the living conditions in the camps were atrocious.[25]

Dr. John E. Gordon, M.D., Ph.D., a professor of preventive medicine and epidemiology at the Harvard University School of Public Health, was also with U.S. forces at the end of World War II. Dr. Gordon determined that disease, and especially typhus, was the Number One cause of death in the German camps.[26]

This and other medical evidence proving that most of the inmates in the Signal Corps documentary died of natural causes was not presented at Eichmann’s trial. Obviously, such evidence would have undermined the prosecution’s contention that inmates in the German camps died from a German policy of genocide.

Eichmann’s Testimony

Eichmann sent a note to Servatius before his trial stating that he had few hopes of getting out alive. However, Eichmann wanted to tell the truth for the sake of his descendants. Eichmann stated:  “They will know that their father, great-grandfather, and so on was no murderer. That alone matters for me, not just to survive.”[27]     

Eichmann emphasized in his testimony that he was obliged to follow orders and never acted on his own initiative. Eichmann could not testify that Germany did not have a program of genocide, since the Israeli judges would never have allowed such testimony. Instead, Eichmann portrayed himself as a cog in a machine who had always sought peaceful solutions rather than a murder program. Many news sources reported that Eichmann did a good job in answering Servatius’s questions.[28]

Gideon Hausner’s cross-examination of Eichmann lasted two weeks and turned ugly from the outset. A New York Times article stated that Hausner’s “shrillness and posturing” made Eichmann look like a “clever and wily opponent.”[29] A Dutch reporter observed: “…Eichmann has won on points. He turned out to be of greater stature as a defendant than Hausner as a prosecutor.”[30] Despite his best efforts, Hausner was never able to get Eichmann to admit his guilt.

The three Israeli judges took turns asking Eichmann questions after Hausner’s cross-examination. Eichmann told the Israeli judges that he was not an anti-Semite, and in a few cases had attempted to help Jews. Eichmann stated that he had to follow the “orders by a supreme head of state,” and that he did the best he could under these circumstances. Eichmann’s testimony would seem not to have convinced the judges of his innocence.[31]    


On December 11, 1961, the presiding judge in Eichmann’s trial handed down the death sentence. Adolf Eichmann was hanged six months later. Eichmann’s execution was the first in Israel’s history.[32]

Hannah Arendt wrote in regard to the Eichmann trial:

In Israel, as in most other countries, a person appearing in court is deemed innocent until proved guilty. But in the case of the Eichmann trial this was an obvious fiction. If he had not been found guilty before he appeared in Jerusalem, guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, the Israelis would never have dared, or wanted, to kidnap him; Prime Minister Ben-Gurion, explaining to the president of Argentina, in a letter dated June 3, 1960, why Israel had committed a “formal violation of Argentine law,” wrote that “it was Eichmann who organized the mass murder [of six million of our people], on a gigantic and unprecedented scale, throughout Europe.” In contrast to normal arrests in ordinary criminal cases, where suspicion of guilt must be proved to be substantial and reasonable but not beyond reasonable doubt--that is the task of the ensuing trial—Eichmann’s illegal arrest could be justified, and was justified in the eyes of the world, only by the fact that the outcome of the trial could be safely anticipated.[33]

The three Israeli judges in Eichmann’s trial were also biased. This is implicitly acknowledged in the book Eichmann Interrogated, “It was a fair trial as far as the feelings of the judges permitted.”[34] Law professor Frank Tuerkheimer writes concerning Eichmann’s judges: “Aside from what they knew as educated persons, each of the three judges had left Germany for Palestine in the 1930s and it would be unusual if none of their extended families had emerged unscathed from the Holocaust.”[35]

In Israel, where emotions ran high concerning the so-called Holocaust, it was of course impossible for Eichmann to get a fair trial. The prohibition of the defense to question the reality of the Holocaust story, to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, to consult with Eichmann in confidence, to have the case heard by impartial judges, to contest testimony and evidence from the IMT, and the routine admission of hearsay evidence all ensured Adolf Eichmann’s conviction. The result was an unjust verdict that augmented a false history of the so-called Holocaust.



[2] Lipstadt, Deborah E., The Eichmann Trial, New York: Schocken Books, 2011, p. xi.

[3] Douglas, Lawrence, The Memory of Judgment: Making Law and History in the Trials of the Holocaust, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2001, p. 6.



[6] Arendt, Hannah, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil: New York: Penguin Books, 2006, p. 244.

[7] Cesarani, David, Becoming Eichmann: Rethinking the Life, Crimes, and Trial of a “Desk Murderer”, Cambridge, Mass.: Da Capo Press, 2006, pp. 247-248.

[8] Ibid., pp. 242-247.


[10] Cesarani, David, Becoming Eichmann: Rethinking the Life, Crimes, and Trial of a “Desk Murderer”, Cambridge, Mass.: Da Capo Press, 2006, pp. 258-259.

[11] Ibid., pp. 262, 268.

[12] Lipstadt, Deborah E., The Eichmann Trial, New York: Schocken Books, 2011, pp. xx, 55.

[13] Ibid., p. 87.

[14] Arendt, Hannah, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil: New York: Penguin Books, 2006, pp. 9, 207.

[15] Ibid., p. 9; see also, pp. 403-404.

[16] Cesarani, David, Becoming Eichmann: Rethinking the Life, Crimes, and Trial of a “Desk Murderer”, Cambridge, Mass.: Da Capo Press, 2006, p. 247.

[17] See

[18], pp. 413-415.

[19] Cesarani, David, Becoming Eichmann: Rethinking the Life, Crimes, and Trial of a “Desk Murderer”, Cambridge, Mass: Da Capo Press, 2006, pp. 205, 244.

[20] Faurisson, Robert, “How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Höss”, The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 7, No. 4/Winter 1986-87, p. 393.

[21] Ibid., 392-399.

[22] Cesarani, David, Becoming Eichmann: Rethinking the Life, Crimes, and Trial of a “Desk Murderer”, Cambridge, Mass: Da Capo Press, 2006, p. 157.

[23] Douglas, Lawrence, The Memory of Judgment: Making Law and History in the Trials of the Holocaust, New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 2001, pp. 97-101.

[24] McCallum, John Dennis, Crime Doctor, Mercer Island, Wash.: The Writing Works, Inc., 1978, pp. 60-61.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Gordon, John E., "Louse-Borne Typhus Fever in the European Theater of Operations, U.S. Army, 1945," in Moulton, Forest Ray, (ed.), Rickettsial Diseases of Man, Washington, D.C.: American Academy for the Advancement of Science, 1948, pp. 16-27. Quoted in Butz, Robert, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, pp. 46-47.

[27] Cesarani, David, Becoming Eichmann: Rethinking the Life, Crimes, and Trial of a “Desk Murderer”, Cambridge, Mass: Da Capo Press, 2006, p. 247.

[28] Lipstadt, Deborah E., The Eichmann Trial, New York: Schocken Books, 2011, pp. 107-115.

[29] Ibid., p. 130; New York Times, July 16, 1961.

[30] Mulisch, Harry, Criminal Case 40/61, the Trial of Adolf Eichmann: An Eyewitness Account, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005, p. 141.

[31] Ibid., pp. 131-138.

[32] Yablonka, Hanna, The State of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, New York: Schocken Books, 2004, p. 140.

[33] Arendt, Hannah, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil: New York: Penguin Books, 2006, pp. 209-210.

[34] Eichmann Interrogated: Transcripts from the Archives of the Israeli Police, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Inc., 1983, p. 293.

[35], p. 403.